PALEO: Cavemen diet? W.rong

K_Serz

[Off topic but...]

How on earth do many people learn anything (about anything) if they find something like this too long to read? Wow. Read!!!

eta: fixed typo

Its too long when much of the info is superfluous. When I read about a topic like this, I dont care about a background story or who wrote what previously. This isnt a Harlequin Romance novel.

Get to the freaking point already. It wasnt until the 7th paragraph where actually numbers were thrown around. And it was in regards to crickets and lactase persistence. Neither of which I CARE. This article asks more questions than it answers and really doesnt say anything to me me except the author questions the Paleo diet. So what? So do a lot of other people. It would probably be better if the author provided actual data to support the arguments other than the fact that people ate grain 30,000 years ago. Big deal.

No; it was an abstract and was pretty damn concise. The author questioned notions of what people were presumed to be eating in the paleolithic era and how tolerances to various foods developed. Any fule kno the 'paleo' diet bears little resemblance to what paleolithic man actually ate.

If you all like it so much. Go out and buy the book. There is a big difference between writing a book and being published in peer reviewed journals regarding your scientific discoveries which contain repeatable experiments. This little column is not an abstract, but a piece written by Laura Miller about the book Marlene Zuk wrote.

Laura Miller is a senior writer for Salon. She is the author of "The Magician's Book: A Skeptic's Adventures in Narnia" and has a Web site, magiciansbook.com.

Yeah, Narnia and magiciansbook.com. Nuff said about that. Ill be moving on to something worth while. Have a nice day!

judydelo1

I know several people that cut out dairy and grains because of intolerances.

They don't call themselves paleo . . . just gluten free/dairy free. I don't think anyone is upset by their diets.

Is it the title "paleo" with references to our evolution that bothers people so much?

Also, just out of curiosity - how much meat do people eat that are following this lifestyle? Do you try to only eat wild caught venison, rabbit, squirrel, squab, turkey, etc? My husband has friends that like to hunt and eat wild game, but we live in a rural area. Would be hard if you are in a city unless you had a way to still buy.

SteveJWatson

[Off topic but...]

How on earth do many people learn anything (about anything) if they find something like this too long to read? Wow. Read!!!

eta: fixed typo

Its too long when much of the info is superfluous. When I read about a topic like this, I dont care about a background story or who wrote what previously. This isnt a Harlequin Romance novel.

Get to the freaking point already. It wasnt until the 7th paragraph where actually numbers were thrown around. And it was in regards to crickets and lactase persistence. Neither of which I CARE. This article asks more questions than it answers and really doesnt say anything to me me except the author questions the Paleo diet. So what? So do a lot of other people. It would probably be better if the author provided actual data to support the arguments other than the fact that people ate grain 30,000 years ago. Big deal.

No; it was an abstract and was pretty damn concise. The author questioned notions of what people were presumed to be eating in the paleolithic era and how tolerances to various foods developed. Any fule kno the 'paleo' diet bears little resemblance to what paleolithic man actually ate.

If you all like it so much. Go out and buy the book. There is a big difference between writing a book and being published in peer reviewed journals regarding your scientific discoveries which contain repeatable experiments. This little column is not an abstract, but a piece written by Laura Miller about the book Marlene Zuk wrote.

Laura Miller is a senior writer for Salon. She is the author of "The Magician's Book: A Skeptic's Adventures in Narnia" and has a Web site, magiciansbook.com.

Yeah, Narnia and magiciansbook.com. Nuff said about that. Ill be moving on to something worth while. Have a nice day!

How do you know that if you couldn't be bothered to read it?

gogoSarahGee

Do what makes you happy and remember what makes YOU happy doesn't mean it will work for EVERYONE : )

PRMinx

[Off topic but...]

How on earth do many people learn anything (about anything) if they find something like this too long to read? Wow. Read!!!

eta: fixed typo

Its too long when much of the info is superfluous. When I read about a topic like this, I dont care about a background story or who wrote what previously. This isnt a Harlequin Romance novel.

Get to the freaking point already. It wasnt until the 7th paragraph where actually numbers were thrown around. And it was in regards to crickets and lactase persistence. Neither of which I CARE. This article asks more questions than it answers and really doesnt say anything to me me except the author questions the Paleo diet. So what? So do a lot of other people. It would probably be better if the author provided actual data to support the arguments other than the fact that people ate grain 30,000 years ago. Big deal.

No; it was an abstract and was pretty damn concise. The author questioned notions of what people were presumed to be eating in the paleolithic era and how tolerances to various foods developed. Any fule kno the 'paleo' diet bears little resemblance to what paleolithic man actually ate.

If you all like it so much. Go out and buy the book. There is a big difference between writing a book and being published in peer reviewed journals regarding your scientific discoveries which contain repeatable experiments. This little column is not an abstract, but a piece written by Laura Miller about the book Marlene Zuk wrote.

Laura Miller is a senior writer for Salon. She is the author of "The Magician's Book: A Skeptic's Adventures in Narnia" and has a Web site, magiciansbook.com.

Yeah, Narnia and magiciansbook.com. Nuff said about that. Ill be moving on to something worth while. Have a nice day!

Sorry, but the credentials of the journalist covering a piece of work in no way negates the actual work conducted by the expert.

SteveJWatson

Although, in all seriousness and, having read the article, peer-reviewed or not - I don't think anybody that does the "Paleo" diet actually thinks it bears any resemblance to the diet consumed by Paleolithic man.

Or:

I seriously hope they don't.

I imagine it works particulalry well for people with low-level gluten intolerances.

WendyTerry420

[Off topic but...]

How on earth do many people learn anything (about anything) if they find something like this too long to read? Wow. Read!!!

eta: fixed typo

Its too long when much of the info is superfluous. When I read about a topic like this, I dont care about a background story or who wrote what previously. This isnt a Harlequin Romance novel.

Get to the freaking point already. It wasnt until the 7th paragraph where actually numbers were thrown around. And it was in regards to crickets and lactase persistence. Neither of which I CARE. This article asks more questions than it answers and really doesnt say anything to me me except the author questions the Paleo diet. So what? So do a lot of other people. It would probably be better if the author provided actual data to support the arguments other than the fact that people ate grain 30,000 years ago. Big deal.

No; it was an abstract and was pretty damn concise. The author questioned notions of what people were presumed to be eating in the paleolithic era and how tolerances to various foods developed. Any fule kno the 'paleo' diet bears little resemblance to what paleolithic man actually ate.

If you all like it so much. Go out and buy the book. There is a big difference between writing a book and being published in peer reviewed journals regarding your scientific discoveries which contain repeatable experiments. This little column is not an abstract, but a piece written by Laura Miller about the book Marlene Zuk wrote.

Laura Miller is a senior writer for Salon. She is the author of "The Magician's Book: A Skeptic's Adventures in Narnia" and has a Web site, magiciansbook.com.

Yeah, Narnia and magiciansbook.com. Nuff said about that. Ill be moving on to something worth while. Have a nice day!

She likes Narnia? Why didn't you say so?

daybehavior

Of course it's being judgemental. Your saying that my diet of protein, veg, fruit and fats is going to need monitoring and that I need luck?

Not sure but I think he's saying correlation =/= causation....AND LOL @ your sample size.

I didn't "LOL" at all. The point is simply that if someone is going to experiment with her diet then she should make make sure that she is carefully logging it and tracking her health. A physical helps with the latter and is a far more objective indicator than simply saying she feels better or worse. That said, she would also need to make sure she controls for other variables such as exercise and stress levels. And yes, if anyone does this then that is a sample size of one, which makes it rather difficult, if not impossible, to apply the results to others.

For all intents and purposes, yeah you did, if not explicitly. But, in any case I was agreeing with you and this thread is just going around in circles now.

SteveJWatson

Although, in all seriousness and, having read the article, peer-reviewed or not - I don't think anybody that does the "Paleo" diet actually thinks it bears any resemblance to the diet consumed by Paleolithic man.

Or:

I seriously hope they don't.

I imagine it works particulalry well for people with low-level gluten intolerances.

Exactly. There are reasons it works. The paleolithic man ate was available. They didn't do it because they were smart. If they had spaghetti, they would have eaten it. They didn't, so, they didn't. They ate what they had. Not because they were smart and were watching what they were eating. They are it because it was there. They didn't have imports. LOL. All they had is what was in front of them. So, it is kind of silly to sit here and argue about that fact.

However, thinking about the health of how humans once ate, it does have some credence. All natural food. Nothing processed. That's the main message. Since things like sugar and flour are processed, people who follow paleo stay away from them, not because carbs are bad, but because they are processed. people miss this point all the time, and it gets boring to keep trying to make everyone understand. Really, when you boil it down, it is the ultimate clean eating...at least as clean as a normal everyday person can be, without being a complete nut job about it.

Well, quite - for example, Paleolithic man would not have had access to a cabbage, say. The precursor of them is seakale and you could have had that if you lived near the coast in northern Europe, otherwise, no. If you don't live in South America, then no tomatoes on your paleo diet, sorry. All breeds of livestock are out, since most of them came about post Robert Bakewell (C16th) - you'd have to eat game and the 'primitive' precursors of our modern breeds...wild boar, Mouflon, Buffalo, Bison etc.

Also; you wouldn't have the year-round access to meat and fruit and veg without late 20th century agricultural techniques.

So; I guess to know that 'Paleo' diets are not what Paleolothic man ate, you really only have to look out of the window.

sunsnstatheart

Of course it's being judgemental. Your saying that my diet of protein, veg, fruit and fats is going to need monitoring and that I need luck?

Not sure but I think he's saying correlation =/= causation....AND LOL @ your sample size.

I didn't "LOL" at all. The point is simply that if someone is going to experiment with her diet then she should make make sure that she is carefully logging it and tracking her health. A physical helps with the latter and is a far more objective indicator than simply saying she feels better or worse. That said, she would also need to make sure she controls for other variables such as exercise and stress levels. And yes, if anyone does this then that is a sample size of one, which makes it rather difficult, if not impossible, to apply the results to others.

For all intents and purposes, yeah you did, if not explicitly. But, in any case I was agreeing with you and this thread is just going around in circles now.

Where did I "not explicitly" lol? Please focus on your own arguments rather than attempting to read things that do not exist into mine. I doubt seriously that you even know if you agree with me, as you clearly do not understand what I've written. I'm afraid too many people on here are instantaneously putting people in "pro-paleo" and "anti-paleo" camps based on a few words which paint an incomplete picture.

For the third time, if anyone is going to experiment with their dietary intake, then they should carefully track their diet and their physical health using objective markers of health. Getting regular physicals will accomplish this. As for being able to extrapolate one's conclusions to others, however, one should be very cautious because of the small sample size. Is this really that controversial?

As for paleo itself, I am one that is not intolerant to any foods that I know of and, as a result, I eat pretty much anything I want while making sure that my macros and micronutrient intake are within the range I need for good health. I've even eaten street food in China, Thailand and Indonesia and never gotten ill, even while those around me did. I am well aware that there are people that are gluten and dairy intolerant. And, for the record, my issues with paleo are, currently, limited to (1) the arguments by paleo writers that people evolved to eat this diet (I clearly did not, and nor did the billions of people who can eat dairy, wheat and legumes) and (2) that it is an accurate depiction of how mankind ate in the paleolithic era. I also do not see the point in cutting out whole food groups if you don't have to, but people do this all the time and lead healthy lives if they are making sure they get those nutrients elsewhere.

eric_sg61

Although, in all seriousness and, having read the article, peer-reviewed or not - I don't think anybody that does the "Paleo" diet actually thinks it bears any resemblance to the diet consumed by Paleolithic man.

Or:

I seriously hope they don't.

I imagine it works particulalry well for people with low-level gluten intolerances.

Exactly. There are reasons it works. The paleolithic man ate was available. They didn't do it because they were smart. If they had spaghetti, they would have eaten it. They didn't, so, they didn't. They ate what they had. Not because they were smart and were watching what they were eating. They are it because it was there. They didn't have imports. LOL. All they had is what was in front of them. So, it is kind of silly to sit here and argue about that fact.

However, thinking about the health of how humans once ate, it does have some credence. All natural food. Nothing processed. That's the main message. Since things like sugar and flour are processed, people who follow paleo stay away from them, not because carbs are bad, but because they are processed. people miss this point all the time, and it gets boring to keep trying to make everyone understand. Really, when you boil it down, it is the ultimate clean eating...at least as clean as a normal everyday person can be, without being a complete nut job about it.

Well, quite - for example, Paleolithic man would not have had access to a cabbage, say. The precursor of them is seakale and you could have had that if you lived near the coast in northern Europe, otherwise, no. If you don't live in South America, then no tomatoes on your paleo diet, sorry. All breeds of livestock are out, since most of them came about post Robert Bakewell (C16th) - you'd have to eat game and the 'primitive' precursors of our modern breeds...wild boar, Mouflon, Buffalo, Bison etc.

Also; you wouldn't have the year-round access to meat and fruit and veg without late 20th century agricultural techniques.

So; I guess to know that 'Paleo' diets are not what Paleolothic man ate, you really only have to look out of the window.

It's an anti-processed foods movement. It is also a "buy local" movement, or farm it yourself movement. It's really more about eating clean and healthful food. It's a movement against plastic processed food. I really really wish it did not have the term paleo or primal associated with it, and they came up with something else. I also wish some of the experts in the field would stop talking about how healthy paleo man was. It doesn't matter. That arguement is stupid. Just eat clean, avoid all processed food. It's simple. People think flour and sugar and pasta is unprocessed. But, it's not.

it's a difficult lifestyle because to stick to it, you really have to go out of your way to find good meats and veggies. Even then, you don't really know what they are really feeding the animals, or shooting them up with. But, you do the best you can. It's defintely uplifting for me to think more purposefully about the food I eat. I may eat processed food sometimes. But, I am purposeful about it. It's not mindless. I know when I am chooising to do it. So, at a minimum, it's made me aware of issues concerning agriculture.

I agree call it something else besides primal or paleo. The food we eat now, no matter how unprocessed and "organic" , is nothing like the food eaten thousands of years ago.

jennaworksout

I LOVE PALEO!!!!

chelsey_hoeft

Thanks for posting! It's great to see the "other side" to this. I am new to eating "cleaner", if you will, and there are SO many theories, diets, and ideas floating around. I've heard some great arguments for Paleo but this is the first time I've seen one that brings it back down from its pedestal. It's stressful when you're new to the nutrition game and everyone, claiming to be right, has a different opinion.
So again, thanks for sharing! Super interesting read.

JUDDDing

“We have a regrettable tendency to see what we want to see and rationalize what we already want to do. That often means that if we can think of a way in which a behavior, whether it is eating junk food or having an affair, might have been beneficial in an ancestral environment, we feel vindicated, or at least justified.”

For the TL;DR crowd - this snippit was worth the price of admission.

bumblebums

The whole Paleo movement is baffling to me (and, off topic but similar, evolutionary psychology, too). If 10,000 years was enough time for dogs to adapt to digesting starches, I daresay it's enough time for humans, too. We are not special.

chrisdavey

As for paleo itself, I am one that is not intolerant to any foods that I know of and, as a result, I eat pretty much anything I want while making sure that my macros and micronutrient intake are within the range I need for good health. I've even eaten street food in China, Thailand and Indonesia and never gotten ill, even while those around me did. I am well aware that there are people that are gluten and dairy intolerant. And, for the record, my issues with paleo are, currently, limited to (1) the arguments by paleo writers that people evolved to eat this diet (I clearly did not, and nor did the billions of people who can eat dairy, wheat and legumes) and (2) that it is an accurate depiction of how mankind ate in the paleolithic era. I also do not see the point in cutting out whole food groups if you don't have to, but people do this all the time and lead healthy lives if they are making sure they get those nutrients elsewhere.

Agreed.

It seems as though a lot of paleo eaters believe that a non paleo person lives off junk food (similar to the clean eating vs IIFYM really) whereas for anyone with half a clue about nutrition their diets would actually be quite similar for the most part but no specific exclusions of food groups for no reason i.e. eat meat, fruit, veggies & nuts for 80% of the diet and then include dairy, wheat etc in the remaining portion. Unless you have a specific intolerance to something, there isn't any need to exclude it. (except for processed trans fats)

daybehavior

Of course it's being judgemental. Your saying that my diet of protein, veg, fruit and fats is going to need monitoring and that I need luck?

Not sure but I think he's saying correlation =/= causation....AND LOL @ your sample size.

I didn't "LOL" at all. The point is simply that if someone is going to experiment with her diet then she should make make sure that she is carefully logging it and tracking her health. A physical helps with the latter and is a far more objective indicator than simply saying she feels better or worse. That said, she would also need to make sure she controls for other variables such as exercise and stress levels. And yes, if anyone does this then that is a sample size of one, which makes it rather difficult, if not impossible, to apply the results to others.

For all intents and purposes, yeah you did, if not explicitly. But, in any case I was agreeing with you and this thread is just going around in circles now.

Where did I "not explicitly" lol? Please focus on your own arguments rather than attempting to read things that do not exist into mine. I doubt seriously that you even know if you agree with me, as you clearly do not understand what I've written. I'm afraid too many people on here are instantaneously putting people in "pro-paleo" and "anti-paleo" camps based on a few words which paint an incomplete picture.

For the third time, if anyone is going to experiment with their dietary intake, then they should carefully track their diet and their physical health using objective markers of health. Getting regular physicals will accomplish this. As for being able to extrapolate one's conclusions to others, however, one should be very cautious because of the small sample size. Is this really that controversial?

First of all, why the hell are you dragging me into this? I didn't say anything to refute anything you wrote nor did I misinterpret what you said. Are you butthurt because I said you LOL'd at her? Seriously?

You are saying (for the third time) she shouldn't make generalizations based on her small sample size of (one) and that she needs to not jump to conclusions. Its not rocket science. I GET IT. Get over yourself.

So technically you didn't say LOL at her, though you did criticize her for her sample size, did you not? That was the ONLY point I was trying to make when I said that. God forbid I try to throw some levity in this cumbersome topic. Not sure why you felt the need to rage over that.

sunsnstatheart

Of course it's being judgemental. Your saying that my diet of protein, veg, fruit and fats is going to need monitoring and that I need luck?

Not sure but I think he's saying correlation =/= causation....AND LOL @ your sample size.

I didn't "LOL" at all. The point is simply that if someone is going to experiment with her diet then she should make make sure that she is carefully logging it and tracking her health. A physical helps with the latter and is a far more objective indicator than simply saying she feels better or worse. That said, she would also need to make sure she controls for other variables such as exercise and stress levels. And yes, if anyone does this then that is a sample size of one, which makes it rather difficult, if not impossible, to apply the results to others.

For all intents and purposes, yeah you did, if not explicitly. But, in any case I was agreeing with you and this thread is just going around in circles now.

Where did I "not explicitly" lol? Please focus on your own arguments rather than attempting to read things that do not exist into mine. I doubt seriously that you even know if you agree with me, as you clearly do not understand what I've written. I'm afraid too many people on here are instantaneously putting people in "pro-paleo" and "anti-paleo" camps based on a few words which paint an incomplete picture.

For the third time, if anyone is going to experiment with their dietary intake, then they should carefully track their diet and their physical health using objective markers of health. Getting regular physicals will accomplish this. As for being able to extrapolate one's conclusions to others, however, one should be very cautious because of the small sample size. Is this really that controversial?

First of all, why the hell are you dragging me into this? I didn't say anything to refute anything you wrote nor did I misinterpret what you said. Are you butthurt because I said you LOL'd at her? Seriously?

You are saying (for the third time) she shouldn't make generalizations based on her small sample size of (one) and that she needs to not jump to conclusions. Its not rocket science. I GET IT. Get over yourself.

So technically you didn't say LOL at her, though you did criticize her for her sample size, did you not? That was the ONLY point I was trying to make when I said that. God forbid I try to throw some levity in this cumbersome topic. Not sure why you felt the need to rage over that.

Dragging you into this? You must be joking, right? You stuck your nose into it by telling me and others that I said something I clearly did not. And neither did I "criticize her for small sample size." There was no criticism in the statement about extrapolating. Seriously, read the words on the page, and stop reading things that are not there. You clearly do not get it.